Pakistan — the Peter Pan country By Chris Cork: New Age Islam's Selection, 23 June 2017
New
Age Islam Edit Bureau
23 June 2017
• Pakistan — the Peter Pan Country
By Chris Cork
• Soft Coup in Saudi Arabia
By Dr Ejaz Hussain
• From Nationalism to Democracy, With Hypocrisy
By Imran Jan
• Fault Lines That Stoked the Gulf Crisis
By Moazzam Husain
• Saudi Arabia Gets a Young Crown Prince
By M D Nalapat
• Qatar and Greater Politics
By Maryum Nazir
• Beyond The Dream
By Kamila Hyat
• When A Muslim Is Killed
By Malak Chabkoun
• The Country Spread
By Asha’ar Rehman
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
----
Pakistan — the Peter Pan Country
By Chris Cork
June 22, 2017
The writer is editorial consultant at The Express Tribune, news junkie, bibliophile, cat lover and occasional cyclist
The Peter Pan country? Yes, the country that has never grown up. To be sure there is no shortage of grown-ups everywhere but in many instances what is on the outside is different from what is on the inside, and on the inside the dominant life-form is the inner child.
It was a couple of images posted by a friend who is a doctor. A young boy looked out of one. The left eye was bandaged and his face distorted, there was what appeared to be an entry wound on the top left of his scalp. The second picture was an x-ray profile. The bullet that blew out his eye and damaged his brain was clearly visible, angled towards his spine. And yes, it was firing into the air in celebration of the win by the Pakistan cricket team earlier on the evening that led to him being turned into a cripple for the rest of his life.
This is the bit usually unseen. Jubilation firing almost never makes headlines and is reported in a few lines if reported at all. But the casualty figures in the aftermath of the win by the Greenies was something else, and reports rolled in over the following 24 hours from all provinces but with K-P and Karachi having the greatest in terms of numbers on casualty lists. Men, women and children all hit by falling shot and injuries that ranged from the superficial to the lucky to be alive.
Men — and I think we have to assume this is an exclusively male activity — pointed their guns at the sky and pulled the trigger, usually in the middle of an urban and densely populated area, and popped off a clip or a few individual rounds. Then went back inside to be comfily seated before what went up became what comes down. And kills and maims people. And the level of awareness in these man-children who have just had a bit of fun? Zero. Zip. Zilch. And if asked whether they had given a thought to the consequences of their actions they would smile, shrug and walk away doubtless commenting on the impertinence of whoever it was that asked them if they gave a damn for the outcome of their actions. Guilt would figure nowhere. Responsibility a value far down their emotional developmental road, over the horizon.
Scroll back 25 years to Gilgit in the ’90s and it was all a bit like the Wild West. Firing into the air at that time could include the discharge of rocket-propelled grenades (that explode on impact with the ground) heavy machine guns and a battery of hand-held weapons. Rumour had it that PIA would inquire as to whether there was to be a wedding coincident with a flight. Probably apocryphal but not impossible. Then there was my own village in Punjab where guns appeared out of the woodwork and got discharged in celebration of rain would you believe. But all this was long ago…
The outbreak of collective common sense that is a pointer to eventual maturity really set in around the turn of the century. Communities began to de-weaponise, some of them, and nowadays and certainly in my own area aerial firing is virtually unheard of. In the single instance in recent times the police arrested an entire wedding party within sight of my house when they cut loose with the Kalashnikovs. At risk of dire retribution it was noted afterwards by chatty neighbours that the family concerned had migrated from…errr…K-P. They left soon afterwards.
Whilst a significant proportion of the population have reached a level of emotional maturity that allows them to understand that shooting guns upwards has a downside that may include the deaths of their nearest and dearest, there is a still-strong section of the populace that keep their guns in the playpen just in case they want to celebrate getting potty-trained. There are millions of these Peter Pans and collectively they are a drag-anchor on the growth of the state because their immaturity and irresponsibility extends far beyond their gun ownership and deep into the way they interact with the wider world. Well it has stopped raining in Bahawalpur. Let’s put up a few shall we?
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1441424/pakistan-peter-pan-country/
-----
Soft Coup in Saudi Arabia
By Dr Ejaz Hussain
23-Jun-17
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia once again finds itself in the limelight for several reasons. Over the past couple of years, austerity measures invoked by former deputy crown prince Mohammad bin Salman shocked both the global media and millions of domestic and foreign workers within Saudi Arabia.
On the other hand, the Roya (vision) 2030 exposed the structural weaknesses of Saudi’s oil-reliant economy and depicted a clear attempt by the Kingdom to explore different avenues of improving its economy such as reducing domestic subsidies and laying off thousands of workers - many of them from Pakistan.
On the external strategic front, Mohammad, who is also the country’s defense minister, invoked a hawkish foreign policy towards Yemen and the kingdom’s strategic rival, Iran. Thus, two years ago when the Obama Administration and its European allies were busy finalizing the nuclear agreement with Iran - a country that defied the US and its interests in the region - the house of Saud as well as the state of Israel seemed perturbed owing to what they perceived as the strategic ramifications of the newly emerging US-Iran ties.
It seems plausible that the Saudi austerity plan was planned for a scenario where the US would no longer buy Saudi petroleum products since it now had an alternative market in Iran. It is also true that following the discovery of shale oil in the US, America has significantly reduced its dependence on the Middle East to meet its energy needs.
Regardless, Obama’s policies on Iran sent shockwaves throughout Saudi Arabia, Israel and a host of other Arab nations. Although the US signed a defence agreement worth US$50 billion with Israel-alleviating some of the Jewish state’s concerns-the Arab nations stood almost neglected.
The election of Donald Trump in last year’s American elections, however, not only pleased millions of Republicans, but also turned out to be a blessing in disguise for Saudi Arabia. Trump’s critics accuse him of acting like a king in his position as president, and indeed even before he assumed office, Trump was sending strategic signals to countries such as Russia and Iran through unorthodox means such as his Twitter account. In light of this, the Saudi regime seems to have adopted multiple channels of communication to establish a rapport with Trump.
Trump’s friendly attitude towards Saudi Arabia meant the two countries were busy signing a US$110 billion arms deal the day Iran re-elected moderate Hasan Rouhani as President.
This arms deal, which is spread over several years, has once again shifted the balance of power in favour of Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. Although the Iran and P5+1 nuclear deal looks fine on paper, it has lost its practical value.
Saudi’s reinvigorated relationship with the US has allowed the Kingdom to deal firmly with external and internal challenges. Internally, King Salman and his son, Mohammad, have established overwhelming control over the house to the extent that the progeny of Salman’s brothers such as Talal is literally sidelined. As if this was not enough, on June 21, King Salman staged a soft coup and in an unprecedented move, appointed his son Mohammad, as the crown prince.
The selection of hawkish Salman means Saudi Arabia will further harden its line towards Iran, and we might see an escalation in fighting in Yemen
The young Mohammad bin Salman has the confidence and overwhelming support of his father and also holds a tight grip on the media and different state departments. This will allow him to firmly clamp down on any dissent towards his appointment.
The selection of hawkish Salman means Saudi Arabia will further harden its line towards Iran, and we might see an escalation in the fighting in Yemen, where Saudi believes Iran is fighting a proxy war.
Similarly, the Saudi state is likely to adopt an increasingly belligerent approach towards anti-state elements such as the Islamic State (IS) which is also viewed as America’s worst enemy by the Trump Administration.
Considering Pakistan is part of the Saudi-led Sunni anti-terrorism alliance, Saudi Arabia under Mohammad bin Salman might be a hard country to deal with in the future. Given Pakistan’s reluctance to completely commit to Saudi’s military ventures, Ibne Salman might adopt an arrogant approach and exhort Pakistan to do more. We can also expect Trump to adopt a similarly tough attitude towards Pakistan since some media reports suggest Trump is fast looking for a military solution to the Afghanistan conundrum.
To add fuel to the fire, as per Trump’s tweet, his North Korea diplomacy via China has failed. Will the US attack North Korea? Will it attack Afghanistan? Would Pakistan find itself in the line of fire? The coming months will be interesting and, to some extent, scary.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/23-Jun-17/soft-coup-in-saudi-arabia
----
From Nationalism to Democracy, With Hypocrisy
By Imran Jan
23-Jun-17
If only would we read history, we would not only fathom the Qatar crisis well but also be able to predict it. No wonder that understanding the present and knowing the future requires the knowledge of history. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt ended diplomatic ties with Qatar. The four Arab states cite Qatar’s support for terrorism as their reason. Interestingly, the Muslim Brotherhood was in the list mentioned as a terror organisation supported by Qatar. What followed was Qatar denouncing the move and claiming that it was not doing what it was being accused of.
The story of the Muslim Brotherhood needs a little historic perspective here. The west, mainly the US and the UK after the Word War II, saw the expansion of communism as a threat not to individual liberties, free speech, free press or something similar. They saw it as a threat to their business interests, which is a code name for selfishly exploiting the resources of other nations.
To fight communism led by the Soviet Union, the West saw radical Islam as the only counter force. US president Eisenhower had called King Saud ‘the great gookety gook of the Muslim world’. The aim of the West was to remove the Nasserite nationalist agenda and replace it with pro-western radical Islam. Radical Islam was provided immense support, both overt and covert. The Muslim Brotherhood was one of the chief recipients of this support. A symbiotic relationship between the west led by the US and the UK and the House of Saud was unleashed.
Saudis supported forces loyal to a deposed imam in Yemen against the forces supported by Egypt’s Nasser resulting in a civil war that lead to over 200 thousand deaths in Yemen. Under Faisal, Saudi Arabia began to bankroll the Islamic centre of Geneva, which was established by Said Ramadan in 1961 and which acted as the international headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood and a meeting place for the Islamists across the world. King Faisal also supported the Brotherhood for various assassination attempts aimed at Nasser.
The Saudis started asserting their leadership role in the Middle East using Wahhabi Islam in the early 1960s
All these efforts were supported by the UK. In 1965, Whitehall defended the Sultan of Oman, which was probably the most repressive regime in the Post War Middle East. Wearing glasses and talking to anyone for more than fifteen minutes was forbidden.
The Saudis started asserting their leadership role in the Middle East using Wahhabi Islam in the early 1960s. The world witnessed an extreme and desperate expression of such an assertion during the Afghan war of the 1980s. While it is true that the Saudis and the Iranians are at loggerheads over the throne of the Middle East, there is however, more to the issue than meets the eye. The two were not enemies for as long as there was a dictatorship in Iran. Saudi Arabia is incompatible with democracy in the Middle East.
In 2012, the Muslim Brotherhood won the election in Egypt. Muhammad Morsi became the president. A year later, he was removed by General Sisi in a coup, which the US refuses to call so because of a law that forbids US aid to countries where military coup happens. The Saudis supported the coup and even provided Egypt a $ 12bn aid along with UAE and Kuwait. After the coup, King Abdullah praised the Egyptian army for saving Egypt “from a dark tunnel”. The House of Saud views democracy as a dark tunnel.
Before the end of the Cold War, it was the Nasserite Pan Arabism or nationalism that was viewed as a threat to the throne of the House of Saud. The west and the Saudis were afraid of nationalism sweeping across the Arab world. Today, democracy has replaced nationalism. Democracy is the new threat. In the wake of the Arab Spring, democracy was sweeping across the Arab world. The west and the Saudis again teamed up to neutralise the enemy. I must argue, this is a grimmer picture than when nationalism was the threat.
In both the cases, the symbiotic relationship works to achieve two objectives: for the Saudis, the continued hold over power and the ability to buy pretty women and vehicles made with gold. For the West, the Brotherhood was Washington’s and London’s shock troops. Their ‘nuisance value’ was important to the continued access and exploitation of oil. It’s the money stupid!
More importantly, in Qatar crisis the most conspicuous element is the hypocrisy that’s on full display. Saudi Arabia has a deep history of collusion with the Brotherhood as illustrated above. Limited space only allows me to dig a few stories from the Orwellian memory hole. The Saudi mindset is that of an emperor who lectures and punishes pirates for the same crime the emperor himself committed, well, on a larger scale.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/23-Jun-17/from-nationalism-to-democracy-with-hypocrisy
----
Fault Lines That Stoked the Gulf Crisis
By Moazzam Husain
June 22, 2017
The writer studied Middle East politics at the American University in Cairo moazzamhusain@gmail.com
Is the present Gulf crisis going to blow over soon or does it reflect a deeper fault line? How significant are Pakistan’s stakes and what do we need to consider in adopting a position on this crisis?
Confounded by the complexity of the nature of conflicts across the Middle East there’s a tendency for most Pakistanis to turn to conspiracy theories. Instead, the most plausible framework to interpret these events is the prism of religious ideology. And the reason for this is simple: the foremost challenge to incumbent regimes is from competing religious ideologies and not from power politics, oil politics or the Arab-Israeli dispute. The actions of these regimes are driven more by fear than by opportunity. Above all is their need for survival.
Viewed from that standpoint, it would appear that the sectarian schism is the primary and more visible fault line, a religious rivalry that extends deep into the vault of Islamic history. The clergies on both sides of the Persian Gulf wield substantial authority and both the Iranian and Saudi political regimes owe their ‘legitimacy’ and survival to their religious establishments.
Yet, even as that rivalry plays out in Iraq, in Syria and Lebanon, in Yemen and other theatres, the two have not severed diplomatic links nor imposed a land, sea and air blockade on the other. That rivalry falls almost exclusively in the realm of power politics and is not a huge domestic worry for either regime.
On the other hand, there is a less obvious fault line, one that has become particularly worrisome following the events of the Arab Spring and that is at the heart of the present crisis. While both are modern fundamentalist movements Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood differ along a key ideological axis. Wahhabism looks towards a strong central authority to oppose innovation and enforce a strict moral code. It is essentially reactionary.
The Muslim Brotherhood uses grassroots activism towards achieving social and economic justice. It is essentially progressive. One is top down where the state is an adjunct of religion. The other is bottom up, focused on educational programmes and social services with the more distant goal of participating in electoral politics.
The Saudi rulers are deeply suspicious of the Brotherhood’s political and social mobilising capacity. It feels that would be a destabilising influence and pose a challenge to its status as the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and finds Qatar’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood unpalatable. So how deep is this compulsion for Qatar? Foreign policy, after all, is an extension of domestic policy. And the Brotherhood has no domestic roots in Qatar which in fact allows no political activism of any kind. Neither does the country have a strong clergy like Saudi Arabia. This is just a small country trying to punch above its weight and project power in the playing field of the Arab Spring.
A recalcitrant Qatar is also posing a challenge to Saudi efforts to coalesce the region to pose a unified front against Iran. Qatar and Iran share the same gas field and are tied in a working relationship. While Qatar may be able to yield on support for the Muslim Brotherhood, it could yield less here. By all indications the Qatar regime will stay; it will likely even soften its stance on the Muslim Brotherhood. With that the crisis may resolve soon. Perhaps the words of Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu provide an insight into how this will happen: “Although the [Saudi] Kingdom is a party in this crisis, we know that King Salman is a party in resolving it. We want to hear the views of Saudi Arabia regarding possible solutions and will share with them our views in a transparent way …”
As for Pakistan, our stakes with Saudi Arabia and the UAE are substantial. This means a policy of neutrality but perhaps more ‘neutral’ on one side than the other. Saudi Arabia is a country that has also strongly diplomatically supported Pakistan at all forums. Pursuing neutrality should not come at a cost to us. We have very few diplomats that are experts on the Middle East and the ones that are may not be able to convey these intricacies to the political and military leaderships.
Finally, while there may be other things wrong with General (retd) Raheel Sharif’s presence in Saudi Arabia as head of the Islamic Military Alliance but — and this may sound counter-intuitive — it has little bearing on the present standoff. Our response should be based on practical as opposed to moral or ideological considerations. That’s what the government seems to be doing and with small fine tuning, Pakistan must stay that course till the maelstrom is over which it will soon be.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1441434/fault-lines-stoked-gulf-crisis/
-----
Saudi Arabia Gets a Young Crown Prince
By M D Nalapat
June 22, 2017
SAUDI Arabia is a very important country with a young population. Now, after a succession of elderly rulers, it is looking at the unprecedented possibility of a young ruler who has exhibited a willingness to ensure that his country adjusts to the modern world in the way the youth want but which conservative forces have thus far blocked. King Salman of Saudi Arabia, in exercise of the authority vested in him as Ruler, has appointed his son Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) as the Crown Prince, thereby ensuring that the 31-year eldest son of the King and his third wife Princess Fahda will succeed him. Although several commentators have expressed surprise at this move, the reality is that from 2012 onwards, after the death of Crown Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz al Saud, he has been next in line to King Salman, who at that point in time became the Crown Prince.
It was only in 2015 that the young business expert was made to give up this prized slot in favour of uncle Nayef, who was made Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia when King Salman took over after the passing away of King Abdullah. Before this, MBS had been appointed State Minister in 2014 and a year later, was made Defence Minister. Since then, the youthful heir to the Saudi throne has been taking a considerable amount of interest in military matters, for example being the prime mover behind the 2015 invasion of Yemen, mainly by Saudi forces out to ensure the return to Sanaa of Mansur Hadi, who for decades has been a loyalist of the Saudi Royal Family, as indeed are several politicians and officials across the region and beyond.
Crown Prince Mohammad is a determined individual fixated on getting his own way, which indeed seems to have been his destiny, seeing how far he has come in five years as a consequence of the complete confidence that King Salman has in him. Despite its immense financial reserves, Saudi Arabia has its limitations, as has been shown by the lack of military breakthroughs in Yemen and Syria despite huge outlays. The example of President George W Bush is before the world. Apparently to avenge the effort made by Saddam Hussein to kill his father George H W Bush, the 43rd US President went to war in Iraq. As a consequence, the Taliban were enabled to return to deadly effectiveness in Afghanistan.
Despite the false claims made by President Bush and his associates, the only link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda was their mutual distaste of each other. Soon after he was deposed and the government of Iraq headed by a US national rather than a native of that country, terrorist groups sprang up throughout Iraq and beyond, militias that include Daesh. More consequently, not only the US but the world economy has been weakened by the wars of George W Bush, none of which he could complete during his two terms in office. The other example the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia should examine is that of President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who met only partial success in his efforts at building a Great Society because of the money cost and political turmoil of the Vietnam war.
It is clear from the records that President John Fitzgerald Kennedy would have wound down the war despite advice to the contrary from his Cabinet. However, Johnson lacked the confidence to push aside the bad advice he was getting from Defence Secretary Robert McNamara and his generals. The same fate seems to be afflicting President Trump, who seems unable to moderate the policy options being pushed by his Cold Warrior Defence Secretary James Mattis and his generals, almost all of whom seem to believe that the Atalanticist-Orientalist phase of human history is still relevant, when in fact this construct has been overtaken by the realities of the present Indo-Pacific century.
Should the 45th President not show some of the robust attachment to realities that he displayed while on the 2016 campaign trail, Mattis is on course to spark off a war between the US and a combination of both Iran as well as Russia. Certainly it would appear from the evidence that the US has encouraged Crown Prince Mohammad to create a set of conditions that have the potential to result in an all-out conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a development that would devastate the region as comprehensively as George W Bush and the real power behind Barack Obama, Cold Warrior Hillary Clinton, have reduced Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and large parts of Iraq to chaos. The new Crown Prince has shown his understanding of the imperative of Saudi Arabia going through a reform process that would free the young from the constraints that the hyper-conservative elements within the Kingdom have for long imposed.
To be fair, King Abdullah (despite his age) initiated a process of reform, although this was partial in its effects. The new Crown Prince has been far bolder, challenging those who seek to keep much of Saudi institutions and society in the same straitjacket that existed two centuries ago, before the Kingdom came in contact with the most modern countries then extant on the globe. King Abdul Aziz showed great wisdom in ensuring the independence of the giant country that he created and named after his own family. During his time, Abdul Aziz was as much of an innovator as the new Crown Prince has shown himself to be in matters of society and the economy, unlike in the case of defence, which he oversees with a conservative vision that shuns moderation against those he sees as wholly different from his own country and its people. Should Crown Prince Mohammad focus on peace rather than on war, on conciliation rather than conflict, he could change the destiny of his people as comprehensively as King Abdul Aziz bin Saud did a century ago.
Source: pakobserver.net/saudi-arabia-gets-young-crown-prince/
----
Qatar and Greater Politics
By Maryum Nazir
June 22, 2017
AS the crisis situation engulfs the Gulf region once again, the world witnesses emergence of blocs and alliances. The diplomatic cut off between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain and UAE has come shortly after the unity and power display at Riyadh Summit. The three Gulf countries and Egypt have accused Qatar of supporting terrorism and destabilizing the region. Qatar which shares its border only with Saudi Arabia has rejected the accusations, calling them “unjustified” and “baseless.” However, the timing of this sudden and drastic political sanctioning of Qatar is viewed as unprecedented with numerous implications for the already fragile regional security order.
With airspace closed, imports stopped at borders, Qatari expatriates expelled from neighbouring and regional countries, it is suspected that Qatar could face an acute economic plight for its reliance on Gulf neighbours for almost 80 percent of food imports alongside the extensive detouring of its flights. In the series of events, Turkey has regarded the isolation moves against Qatar ‘a grave mistake’ which is ‘inhumane and against Islamic values’. Like Iran, Russia has also voiced support and called for ‘constructive’ dialogue. On the role and stance of US, there is a clear dichotomy visible.
President Trump seems to endorse the Gulf States’ action in a series of tweets. It was added that his talks with Saudi Arabia and other nations during Summit have ‘already paid off” after leaders have said to take a ‘hard line on funding extremism.’ While, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in his statement has called for immediate steps to be taken to de-escalate the situation and put forth a good faith effort to resolve the grievances they have with each other. It was also urged that Gulf States must ease their blockade of Qatar as it could have ‘humanitarian consequences’ and a possible impact on the United States’ military efforts in the region as well.
As a solution to the problem and resumption of relations, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have asked for the expulsion of members of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, and shutting down Al-Jazeera network which are pretty big things to ask for. Meanwhile, it is important to note that the list does not include the demand for Qatar to cut off its ties with Iran. Analysts believe that Qatar-Gulf crisis dates back to historic times, negating the newly founded references of terrorism as the only reason. But given the strategic and security concerns of Saudi Arabia, there exists an opinion that the current cut off with Qatar might backfire. With support of Turkey, Russia and most importantly Iran, there are chances of a new alliance emerging in a region, one with different objectives from the US. Such an alliance could strengthen Iran’s position in the region, the least Saudi Arabia wants. But at the same time, the question arises that would Qatar be able to withstand immense pressures coming from its larger neighbouring in the Gulf region and extra-regional powers? Well, uncertainty stands a chance here.
More so, while President Trump states Qatar as a high-level funder of terrorism, the Unites States’ Defence Secretary James Mattis has signed a deal reportedly worth US$12 billion to sell F-15 fighter jets to Doha. As the confusion prevails over the US stance, there are concerns associated with the presence and maintenance of US Central Command regional forward base and airfield operating in Qatar as well. Will any open rift with Qatar bring up a downside?
For Pakistan, Qatar crisis presents a complex equation. As Saudi Arabia questions Pakistan’s intention, the situation brings forwards a test case for Pakistan’s diplomatic brain and manoeuvring. Taking sides in the crisis could have critical implications as for now; great powers on both sides have a crucial role to play. The word of ‘calm’ used by states is one wisely mainstreamed but the statements clearly tell which power backs whom. More so, as Gulf sees Pakistan as a prospective member of military alliance, it is time for Pakistan to make decisions with measured calculations and steps.
With few policy options at hand to deal with the crisis, it is basically the visions and interests of various stakeholders that diverge. The escalation of Qatar crisis could only lead to increased rift in the Gulf region specifically when the states are aiming to form a military alliance. Besides, Qatar strategic value, resource richness and multi-billion dollars investment across the world are key factors which could impact the decision-making at the regional level. With blocs and alliances emerging, the risk is certainly greater specifically when the region is already under turmoil.
Source: pakobserver.net/qatar-greater-politics/
----
Beyond The Dream
By Kamila Hyat
June 22, 2017
For a few magical hours on Sunday, Pakistanis – in the country and around the world –lived at the heart of a dream as they watched their cricket team defeat India in an exhilarating encounter at the Oval. So few had expected this win that celebration – and, with it, inspiration – soared high, reminding us of how sports can be powerful uniting force and why it matters as part of a nation’s identity and its sense of pride.
But with the game over, even as the sense of triumph continues in posts over social media, we have returned into the less beautiful world of reality. The JIT’s verdict lies ahead and the circus that this investigation has become is a reminder of the dysfunctional nature of a state apparatus that has gone astray.
The WhatsApp call, the leaked photographs, the hacked computers, the argument over the recording of proceedings and the bizarre allegations against major organisations of the state have created a new sense of chaos and made it quite obvious that, like others before it, this inquiry may go nowhere. The degree to which it has been politicised – with all parties playing their own games in the process – makes any quest to hunt down corruption almost irrelevant. Certainly, this no longer appears to be the thrust of the entire affair.
Even if the prime minister and his family are damaged by the judgment and all that has transpired, the obvious mishandling of the inquiry by the JIT will simply lead to more friction and a possibly dangerous situation. In no way has the purpose of democracy or accountability been served. It can only be served if there is a genuine effort to develop a system that can target corruption no matter where it exists and which institution that it stems from.
The fact that some institutions and organisations are completely immune from any query into their actions makes the entire exercise against politicians rather futile. Just as is the case with a rusted steel structure, it is not possible to simply remove the rust from one small portion and ensure that the installation itself will not remain in a precarious state. If we deal with the lack of transparency and issues involving the misuse of power in all spheres in our country in an equitable manner and without bias, we will be able to move any further along the road to solve these crippling problems.
As the run-up to Eidul Fitr begins and the country moves into holiday mode, there are also other things to question. We are told in reports produced by the Global Hunger Index and Oxfam that 40 percent of cooked food in the country goes to waste – the bulk of it at parties and other large gatherings. As entire plates of food are dumped into garbage piles, we have families which believe that they have no options left in life. Just days ago, there were reports of a mother near Lahore who threw her two small children into a well and attempted to take her own life because she was unable to buy them new clothes for Eid.
When we speak of hard facts, some of them are almost never presented to us among the long litany of statistics that are so often blared out on television screens by anchors who are fixated on political developments and the most meaningless actions of the political leadership. Among these hidden facts is the fact that 50 percent of children in the country are stunted – a harsh reality which is not spoken about often enough. This is a huge problem. It is far more pressing than the whisking away of money overseas into secret bank accounts.
Another concern is the fact that 43 percent of people in the country are food insecure – uncertain about where their next meal will come from or, if it will come at all – while 22 percent are malnourished. These are not encouraging figures for a country which possesses sufficient resources to feed its entire population – provided it could work out a way to divide wealth and food in a more equitable fashion.
It is unfortunate that there has been little focus on schemes to achieve this. The same is true of many other countries in the world. In the UK, the cutbacks on social sector funding over the years has resulted in more people who desperately poor. Food banks have cropped up everywhere and enabled people to take home material to prepare a meal. In India, at least one pioneering restaurant has set up a system where food is prepared using leftovers abandoned on tables after customers have been served and fed. The food is placed in a giant refrigerator from which anyone can access it or take it home to families. Other eateries have begun to follow this practice in some cases. Who will be the first to do this in our country? The season of lavish Iftars – when the rates of consumption are higher in all Muslim countries – should be a time to think about this matter.
There is also a great deal else to think about. The encounter on the cricketing field showed the warmth between Indians and Pakistanis as former skipper M S Dhoni cradled Pakistan captain Sarfraz Ahmed’s baby. The short address by the losing captain Virat Kohli also reflected a true sense of sportsmanship, with no excuses made for a loss to a team that he said was better on the day of the match. Politicians need to learn from this. The message applies perhaps most of all to India. But Pakistan also needs to consider why its regional relations are in a shambles and what it can do to build better friendship with all its neighbours. The current tensions have placed it in an extremely precarious condition.
People within the country live precarious lives too. Over the last few months, at least two young domestic servants have either been killed or critically injured as a result of physical abuse by their employers. Others are not safe in their workplaces. Many workers who live without shelter or without adequate support across the country are also not safe.
We have shown our ability to excel in sport. We need to expand this success and turn a victory on the cricket field into a real achievement by working for the benefit of people in the country and bringing them the necessities of life, which can sustain them and their families. It is an achievement in this field that would count as a true victory. The task is far harder than winning a cricket match. But perhaps, taking inspiration from the spirit we saw at the Oval, we can at least aspire towards this ideal and hope to attain what should be our dream of turning our country into a place that offers all its citizens opportunity and hope for a better future.
At present, the vast majority of people have been denied hope and the sense of light that should belong to people who have for decades suffered under a malfunctioned system. They are, therefore, the main victims of the system’s many inadequacies.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/212090-Beyond-the-dream
-----
When A Muslim Is Killed
By Malak Chabkoun
June 22, 2017
When Muslims or people of colour are victims of crimes, investigators caution the public and media to be level-headed and unbiased until all the facts are verified. Commentators rush to caution viewers and social media followers that they shouldn’t rush to judgment about the motive of the murderer, instead focusing on blaming the victim, explaining away the hate or just plain dismissing that Muslims are increasingly a targeted group in the US and other Western nations.
It would be fine to ask the public to ‘wait for the official investigation’ if these same commentators would withhold judgment on investigations when a Muslim is a perpetrator of a crime, but that is not the case. When a Muslim is accused of a crime, media analysts immediately begin to report it as terrorism, without taking into account that Muslims who commit crimes do so for the same reasons as other criminals - because they have no regard for laws or for other human lives.
This double standard doesn’t end there, though. Rather than focusing on the loss of life that the family just suffered, some had the gall to blame Nabra for being out late at night and for her mode of dress. Others chose to vilify the other teenagers who were with her for running away. Perhaps most chillingly, some chose to focus on the murderer’s “legal status” because he had a Hispanic-sounding name, as if American citizens have never or would never commit such crimes!
Focusing on such questions dehumanises Nabra. It makes her murderer the story and finds excuses for his actions. When three young Muslims were murdered in 2015, investigators pinned it on ‘a parking dispute’, as if that justified the actions of their murderer, denying the family’s narrative that Islamophobia played a role, indicating that he was provoked and diminishing the role the victims’ very visible adherence to Islam had in the crime.
When a former Google employee vandalised a mosque and made alarming statements about wanting to kill ‘lots of people’ and hurt blacks, Jews and Mexicans, her mental illness was cited as an excuse for her actions and she got off with probation after spending just four months behind bars before her sentencing.
There is a trend in the US, and it is that our society has become quite adept at finding excuses for murderers. The black community in America has most often been on the receiving end of this disease: when law enforcement murder a black man or woman in cold blood, the resounding question isn’t why this happened in the first place and why it continues to happen - it is why the black man or woman ‘didn’t comply with police orders’, or how the victim’s criminal past ‘contributed to their demise’, as if the victim’s past justifies their murder at the hands of those who are meant to protect them.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/212095-When-a-Muslim-is-killed
----
The Country Spread
By Asha’ar Rehman
June 23rd, 2017
THERE is this gentleman who loves to be ‘different’ from others in pointing out the ‘real’ facts. In the wake of Pakistan’s latest cricketing glory, he has typically drawn his followers’ attention to a glaring ground reality. He says that while it is heartening to find all kinds of leaders in the country hailing the Champions Trophy victory, there are issues related to sports that need some urgent intervention.
In what would leave the more concerned — and not only the most nostalgic — wondering, one message doing the rounds connects the grand Oval crowning of the national side with the vanishing cricket grounds in Lahore. In particular, the focus is on the prime minister’s constituency in the city that has been under so much pressure from the bulldozer in recent decades.
Some new facilities must have cropped up in place of the playing fields once buzzing with activity. But while the new inventions may be of use to many, the obliteration of the old leaves a gaping hole inside those whose aspirations and demands governments find too outdated and expansive to accommodate. They are not even considered worthy of a consolation prize.
The story of the big city’s growing disrespect for providing the revellers and general enthusiasts with open spaces has many angles. One particular dimension that the composition of this victorious national cricket side shows is how the smaller towns are coming up to fill the vacuum and to champion pursuits that were once the pride of towns which have — maybe — expanded a bit too much for their own leisure and comfort. It is all about space.
It is the exclusion of players from Lahore that is, sarcastically, credited for the national side’s successful campaign at the Champions Trophy.
It is remarkable how people are comparing the rousing reception given to skipper Sarfraz Ahmed in Karachi with the welcome (or not) afforded to Hassan Ali, a bowler from a Gujranwala neighbourhood who won a couple of personal honours at the Champions Trophy.
This is no fluke. There is a pattern to it. There are so many other small-town players in the cricket team whose performance confirm how they are competing with and regularly overtaking the more privileged boys from the big towns. Shadab Khan, Fakhar Zaman, Naeem Ashraf and before them players such as Mohammad Amir.
It’s been a gradual spread-unmasking talent in untapped lands. For many years, connoisseurs celebrated, with great pleasure, laidback Multan’s late discovery: the ability to casually throw up a giant such as Inzamam-ul-Haq. Then sometime later — in fact many years later — Faisalabad came to the fore with names such as Saeed Ajmal, Mohammad Hafeez and of course Misbah-ul-Haq who had earlier played for Sargodha.
If Multan and Faisalabad were growing modern towns on their own, often eclipsed by the pomp that big brother Lahore is so fond of generating around itself, there was the case of Sialkot. Sialkot, the city that is, is perhaps much more privileged than any other part of Pakistan in many ways. In the strict context of domestic cricket in the country, the name represents a kind of platform for players from areas living close to and under the long shadow of Lahore.
Muridke, Sheikhupura, Gujranwala and its vicinity, these are the parts from where talent has been channelled into the Sialkot team over recent years. Some from the assorted bunch have then shone bright at the national and international level.
Once it used to be more of a spurt, a flash, such as the one symbolised by Imran Nazir who has the spark but was too impatient for his modest background and perhaps too overawed by the big stage. He eventually tried to wrap up his sentiment in too extravagant an expression which was in essence as much aimed at the opposition in the field as it was directed at the big-city boys who had, for long monopolised space in the national team.
The emotion may still be there, but over a long period of time, the ‘outsiders’ from the countryside have come to have a deeper belief in their own abilities.
For long, this talent from the ‘districts’ continued to be falsely attributed to the big town. For instance, for many outside Punjab, players from areas around Lahore — from as far away as Faisalabad actually — still carried the Lahori tag.
Of late, there has been a change thankfully, and other cities and districts are increasingly claiming their share in the fame brought to them by the cricketing talent produced in their midst. So much so — and one says this with a heavy heart— that today it is the exclusion of players from Lahore which is, sarcastically, credited for the national side’s successful campaign at the Champions Trophy.
These players from the Mofussils or small towns are not here as a result of some magic search employed by the Pakistan Cricket Board, even though they have been greatly helped by the PCB’s initiatives. They have grown in the space available to them in the places of their origin.
Perhaps it wouldn’t be outrageous to remark that they have benefited from the lack of distraction that is part and parcel of life in big urban centres. Perhaps the race is still just a little more relaxed in the relatively smaller towns even when the ambition for modernisation may be the same all over.
There is yet time, and in celebrating the cricket win, we must celebrate the expansion of the country across areas which generally existed away from the national radar, save for the earthshaking local occurrence.
They are the vital links in the chain to keep things moving. They may be found everywhere — in government and private-sector jobs, as labour, filling space as volunteer contributors in newspapers’ special supplements, including the children’s section and women pages, as the big city dwellers are swayed by the more exciting prospects on offer.
Source: dawn.com/news/1341226/the-country-spread
----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/pakistan-—-peter-pan-country/d/111643